Bill Would Require California Retailers To Have Gender-Neutral Sections; Violators Face Fines

[TSwizzle]

Do you believe a shopper looking for trousers for his 8-year-old boy who has outgrown the last batch is more likely to find what he's looking for among trousers for eight year old girls, or among sweaters for six year old boys? If the shop sorts by gender first, the latter will be closer than the former. He may end up with with trousers he doesn't like because he never went to look at the girls' where they would have had what he was looking for,and a sweater he likes but didn't need. That may or may not increase sales, but it's not serving customers' needs

I believe the government should focus on more important issues than how a merchant lays out their products on the shop floor and let the store figure out the best way to serve their customers.

 

[Jokodo]

Do you believe a shopper looking for trousers for his 8-year-old boy who has outgrown the last batch is more likely to find what he's looking for among trousers for eight year old girls, or among sweaters for six year old boys? If the shop sorts by gender first, the latter will be closer than the former. He may end up with with trousers he doesn't like because he never went to look at the girls' where they would have had what he was looking for,and a sweater he likes but didn't need. That may or may not increase sales, but it's not serving customers' needs

I believe the government should focus on more important issues than how a merchant lays out their products on the shop floor and let the store figure out the best way to serve their customers.

I notice you didn't answer my question. There's the question whether gender neutral shop would lead to improved or impoverished customer experiences, and there's the question of whether poorer customer experiences are enough of a problem to justify a legal response. I'm not interested in discussing the second question, and you haven't touched the first, so I guess unless you want to start addressing my there's little we have to discuss.

You can always change that by responding to what I wrote instead of what someone like me might have written.

 

[J842P]

Do you believe a shopper looking for trousers for his 8-year-old boy who has outgrown the last batch is more likely to find what he's looking for among trousers for eight year old girls, or among sweaters for six year old boys? If the shop sorts by gender first, the latter will be closer than the former. He may end up with with trousers he doesn't like because he never went to look at the girls' where they would have had what he was looking for,and a sweater he likes but didn't need. That may or may not increase sales, but it's not serving customers' needs

I believe the government should focus on more important issues than how a merchant lays out their products on the shop floor and let the store figure out the best way to serve their customers.

I notice you didn't answer my question. There's the question whether gender neutral shop would lead to improved or impoverished customer experiences, and there's the question of whether poorer customer experiences are enough of a problem to justify a legal response. I'm not interested in discussing the second question, and you haven't touched the first, so I guess unless you want to start addressing my there's little we have to discuss.

You can always change that by responding to what I wrote instead of what someone like me might have written.

This is a thread in the politics forum about a political story.

 

[Jokodo]

I notice you didn't answer my question. There's the question whether gender neutral shop would lead to improved or impoverished customer experiences, and there's the question of whether poorer customer experiences are enough of a problem to justify a legal response. I'm not interested in discussing the second question, and you haven't touched the first, so I guess unless you want to start addressing my there's little we have to discuss.

You can always change that by responding to what I wrote instead of what someone like me might have written.

This is a thread in the politics forum about a political story.

It is, indeed.

But several people have expressed or hinted that they believe that stores doing what this bill would require them to do would ruin customers' experiences. That's where I jumped in, and that's the notion I'm challenging. No one seems to be willing to defend this notion, though.

 

[Metaphor]

I notice you didn't answer my question. There's the question whether gender neutral shop would lead to improved or impoverished customer experiences, and there's the question of whether poorer customer experiences are enough of a problem to justify a legal response. I'm not interested in discussing the second question, and you haven't touched the first, so I guess unless you want to start addressing my there's little we have to discuss.

You can always change that by responding to what I wrote instead of what someone like me might have written.

This is a thread in the politics forum about a political story.

It is, indeed.

But several people have expressed or hinted that they believe that stores doing what this bill would require them to do would ruin customers' experiences. That's where I jumped in, and that's the notion I'm challenging. No one seems to be willing to defend this notion, though.

The experience would be mixed for different people and for different shopping purposes. Whether it is overall a benefit or disbenefit depends on how much you weight those experiences.

Some people will value the sex-segregated sections for toys and clothes, because it's arranged in a way that they are used to and they know where to go to find what they want.

Some people have nothing beyond 'age and sex' to go on when shopping for someone else's child (birthday, Christmas gifts), and/or have children they are shopping for who have strongly sex-stereotyped interests, and for them it will be probably be inconvenient.

Some people already dislike sex-segregated spaces in shops and will welcome the move.

Some people who have strict notions of what is appropriate for their child based on sex-segregation will be inconvenienced. If it's that important to them, they'll still be able to forbid 'inappropriate' toys and clothes for their children based on their own judgment.

 

[Jokodo]

It is, indeed.

But several people have expressed or hinted that they believe that stores doing what this bill would require them to do would ruin customers' experiences. That's where I jumped in, and that's the notion I'm challenging. No one seems to be willing to defend this notion, though.

The experience would be mixed for different people and for different shopping purposes. Whether it is overall a benefit or disbenefit depends on how much you weight those experiences.

Some people will value the sex-segregated sections for toys and clothes, because it's arranged in a way that they are used to and they know where to go to find what they want.

Some people have nothing beyond 'age and sex' to go on when shopping for someone else's child (birthday, Christmas gifts), and/or have children they are shopping for who have strongly sex-stereotyped interests, and for them it will be probably be inconvenient.

Why would it be? If the eight-year-old boy needs new trousers, however strongly sex-stereotyped his interests are, he will have little use for a sweater that fits a six-year old boy. If the parents are looking for a card game he can play with his friends, an ever so boyish lego set isn't what they're looking for. At most, they wouldn't benefit from it, but it don't see how it would inconvenience them.

 

[Metaphor]

Why would it be? If the eight-year-old boy needs new trousers, however strongly sex-stereotyped his interests are, he will have little use for a sweater that fits a six-year old boy. If the parents are looking for a card game he can play with his friends, an ever so boyish lego set isn't what they're looking for. At most, they wouldn't benefit from it, but it don't see how it would inconvenience them.

I can't follow your reasoning. I think you've misunderstood something about my scenario. Why would I buy an item of clothing that would fit a six year old for an eight year old? Where did you get the idea that the hypothetical involved somebody who knew about the child's interests? I said the person doing the buying doesn't have much to go on other than 'age and sex'.

 

[Metaphor]

Apropos of the thread, does anyone have an idea what to buy for a child turning 1? I'm her godfather but I freely confess I don't know her interests. Also I'm not trying to be funny, I need to buy something before the weekend.

 

[J842P]

Apropos of the thread, does anyone have an idea what to buy for a child turning 1? I'm her godfather but I freely confess I don't know her interests. Also I'm not trying to be funny, I need to buy something before the weekend.

Some form of securities, perhaps in a tax advantaged account?

 

[Metaphor]

Apropos of the thread, does anyone have an idea what to buy for a child turning 1? I'm her godfather but I freely confess I don't know her interests. Also I'm not trying to be funny, I need to buy something before the weekend.

Some form of securities, perhaps in a tax advantaged account?

Somebody else actually mentioned this but I don't think I've got the time to set it up now. It sounds like it involves trusts and lawyers and....things.

 

[Jokodo]

Why would it be? If the eight-year-old boy needs new trousers, however strongly sex-stereotyped his interests are, he will have little use for a sweater that fits a six-year old boy. If the parents are looking for a card game he can play with his friends, an ever so boyish lego set isn't what they're looking for. At most, they wouldn't benefit from it, but it don't see how it would inconvenience them.

I can't follow your reasoning. I think you've misunderstood something about my scenario. Why would I buy an item of clothing that would fit a six year old for an eight year old?

You wouldn't - that's my point: That's how you don't benefit from gender based sorting, where close to the trousers for eight year old boys, instead of more trouser for eight year olds you find jumpers for six year old boys.

 

[Metaphor]

Why would it be? If the eight-year-old boy needs new trousers, however strongly sex-stereotyped his interests are, he will have little use for a sweater that fits a six-year old boy. If the parents are looking for a card game he can play with his friends, an ever so boyish lego set isn't what they're looking for. At most, they wouldn't benefit from it, but it don't see how it would inconvenience them.

I can't follow your reasoning. I think you've misunderstood something about my scenario. Why would I buy an item of clothing that would fit a six year old for an eight year old?

You wouldn't - that's my point: That's how you don't benefit from gender based sorting, where close to the trousers for eight year old boys, instead of more trouser for eight year olds you find jumpers for six year old boys.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

The entire point of my scenario was somebody who did not know the tastes of the child in question and wanted a 'safe', gendered option.

 

[Jokodo]

You wouldn't - that's my point: That's how you don't benefit from gender based sorting, where close to the trousers for eight year old boys, instead of more trouser for eight year olds you find jumpers for six year old boys.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

The entire point of my scenario was somebody who did not know the tastes of the child in question and wanted a 'safe', gendered option.

Yes, what about them? They are going to find gendered trousers for eight year old boys *exactly* in the most logical place to look for them, among trousers for eight year old kids. They have no use for trousers for six year old boys, or often times even for jumpers for eight year olds, e. g. when they called the parents to ask what would be appreciated and were told that he runs through his knees at an amazing speed, so trousers are always welcome. They therefore do not benefit from finding other boys' stuff (e.g. jumpers, or stuff for six year old boys) closer at the expense of finding more trousers for eight year olds on a different floor. If you are looking for A and only A, you don't benefit from B being closer to A than C, nor does it obstruct you.

 

[Metaphor]

You wouldn't - that's my point: That's how you don't benefit from gender based sorting, where close to the trousers for eight year old boys, instead of more trouser for eight year olds you find jumpers for six year old boys.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

The entire point of my scenario was somebody who did not know the tastes of the child in question and wanted a 'safe', gendered option.

Yes, what about them? They are going to find gendered trousers for eight year old boys *exactly* in the most logical place to look for them, among trousers for eight year old kids. They have no use for trousers for six year old boys, or often times even for jumpers for eight year olds, e. g. when they called the parents to ask what would be appreciated and were told that he runs through his knees at an amazing speed, so trousers are always welcome. They therefore do not benefit from finding other boys' stuff (e.g. jumpers, or stuff for six year old boys) closer at the expense of finding more trousers for eight year olds on a different floor. If you are looking for A and only A, you don't benefit from B being closer to A than C, nor does it obstruct you.

First of all, where in my scenario did I specify that the person buying the gift was looking for something specific? I thought I had made it painfully clear they didn't have an idea of what they would get, beyond 'gift for eight year old boy'.

Second, trousers for eight year old boys and for eight year old girls are marketed differently and sometimes cut differently. I really went to quite a bit of pain in my scenario to specify that the person buying the gift does not know the child's tastes. Gendered sections would help that person find a more generally 'safe' option.

Why did you ask for scenarios where it could be a disbenefit but then reject the possibility of any offered scenario?

Why do you think kids sections are currently gendered? Because that's they way it's been popular. If it was a universal benefit to desegregate them, it would be done already without government force.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, what about them? They are going to find gendered trousers for eight year old boys *exactly* in the most logical place to look for them, among trousers for eight year old kids. They have no use for trousers for six year old boys, or often times even for jumpers for eight year olds, e. g. when they called the parents to ask what would be appreciated and were told that he runs through his knees at an amazing speed, so trousers are always welcome. They therefore do not benefit from finding other boys' stuff (e.g. jumpers, or stuff for six year old boys) closer at the expense of finding more trousers for eight year olds on a different floor. If you are looking for A and only A, you don't benefit from B being closer to A than C, nor does it obstruct you.

First of all, where in my scenario did I specify that the person buying the gift was looking for something specific? I thought I had made it painfully clear they didn't have an idea of what they would get, beyond 'gift for eight year old boy'.

Second, trousers for eight year old boys and for eight year old girls are marketed differently and sometimes cut differently. I really went to quite a bit of pain in my scenario to specify that the person buying the gift does not know the child's tastes. Gendered sections would help that person find a more generally 'safe' option.

Why did you ask for scenarios where it could be a disbenefit but then reject the possibility of any offered scenario?

I don't reject your scenario out of hand, I just find it rather tortured. I do find it highly unlikely that this scenario is anywhere near common enough for the pain caused to customers by giving up gendered sections to be more than a blatant red herring, especially compared to the very natural and common scenario of a parent looking for a couple pairs of solid trousers for his or her boy who will reject Frozen merch and the like but won't reject everything that is, for some undiscernible reason, marketed to girls just because it is marketed to girls, even if it doesn't show it. I assure you, as a parent who talks to other parents, that there is nothing tortured about my scenario, that it happens every day.

Why do you think kids sections are currently gendered? Because that's they way it's been popular. If it was a universal benefit to desegregate them, it would be done already without government force.

Those same stores that run out of gym shoes for kids just about when school starts every fucking year, as if schools haven't had sports education for the last 100 years and required special gym shoes for the last 50? Why would I trust them with anything really?

 

[TomC]

Some people will value the sex-segregated sections for toys and clothes, because it's arranged in a way that they are used to and they know where to go to find what they want.

Some people have nothing beyond 'age and sex' to go on when shopping for someone else's child (birthday, Christmas gifts), and/or have children they are shopping for who have strongly sex-stereotyped interests, and for them it will be probably be inconvenient.

But these are the overwhelming majority of shoppers.
And you seem to think stores coerce consumers, when it's clearly the opposite. Stores arrange merchandise to suit the customers.

And frankly, there is a gender neutral clothing department. It's the men/boys wear. Women who want easy care, sturdy, clothing(with pockets) know exactly where to find it. If a guy wants a girlie present for someone, they know where to start as well.

The current method of organizing stores is carefully honed to best suit most people so they leave happy and come back. Especially the really big stores, I can't imagine one that separates shoes by gender and puts them on different floors.
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

And of course, if you want to buy clothes for a child you barely know, you better text the parents first to inquire about sizes - just knowing the kid's age doesn't really cut it there. That's typically when the parents will tell you "oh, and don't bother about trousers, he got a bunch for Christmas he still has to grow into, but a jacket would be much appreciated."

Of course, you can always skip the communication if you really, really want to buy a gift for a child you know nothing about except sex. Feel free to do so. However, if you believe a boy child is better served with boy trousers two sizes too small (which is what you may end up with if you don't talk to the parents) than with neutral looking (but intended for girls) trousers of the right size, I don't know what to say.

 

[Jokodo]

Some people will value the sex-segregated sections for toys and clothes, because it's arranged in a way that they are used to and they know where to go to find what they want.

Some people have nothing beyond 'age and sex' to go on when shopping for someone else's child (birthday, Christmas gifts), and/or have children they are shopping for who have strongly sex-stereotyped interests, and for them it will be probably be inconvenient.

But these are the overwhelming majority of shoppers.

I must be misunderstanding. You seem to be claiming that the overwhelming majority of shoppers in stores selling children's stuff are people who barely know the child, their needs and interests, beyond knowing their sex. Do you not know that most things kids get, they get from live in adult servants called parents who should know them a bit? And the bulk of the rest people who have those servants' phone numbers?

Please clarify what you meant, becausevif it is what it sounds like, you're too deluded for a meaningful discussion.

 

[TomC]

Some people will value the sex-segregated sections for toys and clothes, because it's arranged in a way that they are used to and they know where to go to find what they want.

Some people have nothing beyond 'age and sex' to go on when shopping for someone else's child (birthday, Christmas gifts), and/or have children they are shopping for who have strongly sex-stereotyped interests, and for them it will be probably be inconvenient.

But these are the overwhelming majority of shoppers.

I must be misunderstanding. You seem to be claiming that the overwhelming majority of shoppers in stores selling children's stuff are people who barely know the child, their needs and interests, beyond knowing their sex. Do you not know that most things kids get, they get from live in adult servants called parents who should know them a bit? And the bulk of the rest people who have those servants' phone numbers?

Please clarify what you meant, becausevif it is what it sounds like, you're too deluded for a meaningful discussion.

What I understand is that you clipped off the bulk of my post, and then changed the subject from clothes to toys. If you actually want clarifications, read the rest of what I posted.

If you prefer not to, I agree. You and I haven't anything worth discussing.
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

I must be misunderstanding. You seem to be claiming that the overwhelming majority of shoppers in stores selling children's stuff are people who barely know the child, their needs and interests, beyond knowing their sex. Do you not know that most things kids get, they get from live in adult servants called parents who should know them a bit? And the bulk of the rest people who have those servants' phone numbers?

Please clarify what you meant, becausevif it is what it sounds like, you're too deluded for a meaningful discussion.

What I understand is that you clipped off the bulk of my post, and then changed the subject from clothes to toys. If you actually want clarifications, read the rest of what I posted.

If you prefer not to, I agree. You and I haven't anything worth discussing.
Tom

I didn't change the subject. It's always been clothes *and* toys, since the OP. the bill appears to be about both too. Where I brought up specific examples or illustrative scenarios, they mostly used clothes throughout my contributions to this thread. I really don't see what makes you say I'm changing the subject - in response to a post that mentions neither.

Oh, and yes, I did read the rest. I don't see how it clarifies the first sentence. It rather seems to build on it, take it for granted. Which is exactly why I wanted clarification before addressing the rest.